This is
an accelerated appeal of a juvenile court's order waiving
its exclusive jurisdiction and transferring S.L., III to
district court for criminal proceedings. S.L., III challenges
the juvenile court's finding "that because of the
seriousness of the alleged offenses and the background of the
child, the welfare of the community requires criminal
proceedings." We affirm the juvenile court's order.

Background

S.L.,
III is charged with attempted capital murder, aggravated
robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault. After the State
filed an original petition for discretionary transfer to
district court, the juvenile court signed an order requiring
the juvenile probation office to "perform a complete
diagnostic study, social evaluation and full investigation of
[S.L., III], his circumstances and the circumstances of the
alleged offense" in preparation for the hearing on his
discretionary transfer.[1]

After a
two-day hearing, the juvenile court signed an order waiving
its jurisdiction and transferring S.L., III to district
court. In addition to the findings contained in its written
order, the juvenile court also signed additional findings of
fact in support of its order. S.L., III appeals.

Texas
Family Code Section 54.02

Section
54.02(a) of the Juvenile Justice Code provides, in pertinent
part, that the juvenile court may waive its exclusive
original jurisdiction and transfer a child to district court
for criminal proceedings if the following is determined:

(1) the child is alleged to have violated a penal law of the
grade of felony;

(2) the child was: (A) 14 years of age or older at the time
[of the alleged] offense, if the offense is a … felony
of the first degree, …; or (B) 15 years of age or
older at the time [of the alleged] offense, if the offense is
a felony of the second or third degree …, and no
adjudication hearing has been conducted concerning that
offense; and

(3) after a full investigation and a hearing, the juvenile
court determines that there is probable cause to believe that
the child before the court committed the offense alleged and
that because of the seriousness of the offense alleged or the
background of the child the welfare of the community requires
criminal proceedings.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.02(a) (West 2014). When
determining the seriousness of the offense alleged and the
background of the child pursuant to the third requirement,
section 52.04(f) requires the juvenile court to consider the
following non-exclusive factors:

(1) whether the alleged offense was against person or
property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to
offenses against the person;

(2) the sophistication and maturity of the child;

(3) the record and previous history of the child; and

(4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and
the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of
procedures, services, and facilities currently available to
the juvenile court.

Id. at § 54.02(f).

Standard
of Review

"[I]in
evaluating a juvenile court's decision to waive its
jurisdiction, an appellate court should first review the
juvenile court's specific findings of fact regarding the
Section 54.02(f) factors under 'traditional sufficiency
of the evidence review.'" Moon v. State,
451 S.W.3d 28, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Under a legal
sufficiency challenge, we credit evidence favorable to the
challenged finding if a reasonable factfinder could and
disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder
could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,
827 (Tex. 2005). If there is more than a scintilla of
evidence to support the finding, a legal sufficiency
challenge fails. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v.
Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002); Faisst v.
State, 105 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2003, no pet.).
Under a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider all of the
evidence presented to determine if the court's finding is
so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence
as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Moon, 451 S.W.3d
at 46 n.75 (internal citations omitted); C.M. v.
State, 884 S.W.2d 562, 563 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1994,
no writ). Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting waiver is limited to the facts the juvenile court
expressly relied on in its transfer order. Moon, 451
S.W.3d at 50.

We must
then review the juvenile court's ultimate waiver decision
under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 47.
"That is to say, in deciding whether the juvenile court
erred to conclude that the seriousness of the offense alleged
and/or the background of the juvenile called for criminal
proceedings for the welfare of the community, the appellate
court should simply ask, in light of its own analysis of the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the Section 54.02(f)
factors and any other relevant evidence, whether the juvenile
court acted without reference to guiding rules or
principles." Id. We must, however, remain
mindful that "not every Section 54.02(f) factor must
weight in favor of transfer to justify the juvenile
court's discretionary decision to waive its
jurisdiction." Id. A juvenile court does not
abuse its discretion if its transfer decision
"represent[s] a reasonably principled application of the
legislative criteria." Id. The juvenile court
must, however, "show its work" and specifically
state the reasons for waiver. Id. at 49. "The
juvenile court that shows its work should rarely be
reversed." Id.

Analysis

In his
brief, S.L., III concedes each of the following requirements
for transfer have been met: (1) he is alleged to have
violated a penal law of the grade of felony; (2) he was 15
years of age or older at the time he is alleged to have
committed the offense which is a felony of the first or
second degree and no adjudication hearing has been conducted
concerning that offense; and (3) probable cause exists to
support a determination that he committed the alleged
offense. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.02(a).
The only requirement S.L., III challenges is whether the
welfare of the community requires criminal proceedings
because of the seriousness of the offense alleged or his
background. As previously noted, in determining whether this
requirement is met, the juvenile court must consider the
following non-exhaustive factors:

(1) whether the alleged offense was against person or
property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to
offenses against the person;

(2) the sophistication and maturity of the child;

(3) the record and previous history of the child; and

(4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and
the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of
procedures, services, and facilities currently available to
the juvenile court.

Id. at § 54.02(f).

A.
Section ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.